Talk:False attribution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
The link to my blog was given as I and my co-author coined the term as an informal fallacy.
The blog is secondary to the text book on fallacies I co-wrote. The book itself, is where the term False Attribution was coined as an informal fallacy, as far as I am able to tell.. I guess actually researching something does take time. If you think the entire fallacy is worth removing, then go for it. However, I feel it is a highly valuable term, as there is no other fallacy completely synonymous with it (which is why we coined it). Clark 04:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Also - why remove links to any site that has examples? Surely it is up to the reader (within reason) to decide whether they want to follow an external link? One of the main reasons I search for information on Wikipedia is for the external links (which are often more useful than ones linked to from google et. al.). I’d wager I’m not in the minority in doing this…Clark 04:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Clark (talk • contribs)
My co-author, Jef Clark, is an acedemic a Griffith University whose primary research area is fallacies and informal logic. A reasonable claim to expertise.
Why were the other examples removed capriciously? Why have less content (in a fairly small page)? The George Bush example is a classic and frequent false attribution. Clark 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
